[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> There are a few pieces of the old XLink drafts that help explain current
> arguments, most of which were (I think) put aside in a mad rush to
> namespaces as the solution to all such problems.
>
> Unfortunately, the publicly available requirements and goals for XLink
> all appear to be post-namespaces.
Thanks for the history. It's a fun read. I was hoping that it would shed
some light on the technical problems the XHTML folks encountered in trying to
use XLink. IOW, they don't really help explain current arguments to me. And
why in particular do you think namespaces are a problem in XLink? The only
point I've heard from the XHTML folks so far wrt XMLNS are that the XLink
namespace is extra to type. Surely this isn't what you mean?
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
